Ultimately though, you'll end up having to fight those fights either way. You cannot escape people's prejudice or their ignorance, whatever word you use. And teaching people about feminism (or racial issues or socialism or whatever) really does start at breaking through that barrier. Sometimes it's better to just get it over with than to run into it all the time later on.

It's obviously especially difficult with men, seeing as they don't automatically recognise themselves in the examples or issues given. Although I do find that it's eye-opening for most men when women share how they experience being a woman and the effects of the patriarchy on them. There was actually a Something Awful thread about just that. It's in the archives now, but here's a Google Cache version of page 3, not because that's my favourite page but because google cache is difficult.

We need to stop meeting like this. People might starting getting ideas. Also, now you really are just a shit-stirrer, Dennis. Not that there really was any doubt from the beginning, but you really are just a cunt, aren't you? I can't help but feel your girlfriend wouldn't be slightly wary if she knew you were off harassing random people on forums during the late hours, other than the fact you being an intolerable minge. Fitting, since we're all about feminism in here. Pick up a chair. I also can't help but feel you're taking Sally's mental picture too seriously.

Anyway, you're confused, again. I never said the majority of feminists are misandrists. I never said the majority of feminists anything. I said Andrea Dworkin had a large following and Dworkin was a serious misandrist, hence why I said I understand why some people would have a certain apprehension towards feminism. Or 'hijacked', I did use the word hijacked. Personally that's what I, myself, think. Then Ann Coulter has a large following, who considers her a strong feminist icon (the word 'icon' is used predominantly in the columns to praise her) and when Ann Coulter of all people is a symbol for female equality, then something is very wrong. And yes, I felt I needed to point out the irony of Hugh Hefner. He is a feminist after all.

sorry to come in late I went to sleep after the last post in bed with my girlfriend, having finished my late night harrassing of random people on the internet -- she asked me what I was smirking about so hard and I said I had seen a humorous picture of a cat. A cat! she must never know of my secret double life of upsetting the internet. she would be so wary. so very wary.

Meanwhile, you said,

Quote:

That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end.

and I took that to mean you meant a majority. Completely my bad for twisting your coherent and well thought out point.

People who claim they are 'humanist' are just a trigger for me -- it is the same as people who claim to be victims of 'reverse racism'. If you think humanism is the idea that men and women and transgender and no gender et al. should be treated the same as each other and judged/rewarded on their personal merits as a human being rather than their gender then that's actually feminism.

People who ramble about misandry and humanism and (this is a new one!) 'pink ghettos' frequently, in my experience, have weird martyr complexes because they perceive women as being given more privilege than them.

Exactly, and therein lies the fault! By the words of literally everyone in this thread so far, the core philosophy behind feminism, true feminism, fundamentally includes the assumption that equality is something we should strive for, when we should really strive for full orthogonality (effective data blindness to all except directly relevant facts), from which a much more stable equality and justice will arise than would have been induced by the feminist (and other groups, too!) practice of examining the way things currently are in order to figure out what should be fixed.

I, like Guest, refuse to describe myself as a "feminist," for the reason I gave above. I haven't come up with a word to describe myself yet, but I dislike "humanist" just as much as "feminist," because it explicitly stops at humans.

Seriously though, your Rawlsianism is all fine and dandy but it ignores the facts on the ground and assumes that if you treat people exactly the same/govern them under the same laws, the results will be the same as well. The old equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome debate._________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

Its really frustrating me that people who refuse to call themselves feminists also refuse to even bother responding to the post I made that basically explained why people are upset by that.

Quote:

I just feel that it is important to the feminist movement to use the term feminist. Other people have written on it more eloquently than I'll be able to, but its a convenient way for the well-intentioned to ultimately dismiss feminist concerns.

By lumping us into a bigger category you risk forced comparisons as well as massive generalizations. My ultimate goal is get closer to equality of all people, yes, but acting as though all discrimination is exactly the same cuts out your ability to argue specifics.

Misogyny is not the same as other forms of discrimination. Same as other forms of discrimination are not the same as each other. In order to effectively argue against them, they need to be separate things.

Feminism is against misogyny. It is a direct response to a patriarchal system and the kind of casual sexism that harms men and women. In comparison, the term "humanist" is a sort of hand-waved approval that yeah, okay, sexism is bad. Misogyny is bad. But what about this other stuff that's also bad? It doesn't actually help any of the movements it proposes to support.

You can fight all of the fights, but you cannot fight them as though they are the same thing. Feminism is just one of many fights against discrimination and taking away it's name does not help that fight in the slightest.

Exactly, and therein lies the fault! By the words of literally everyone in this thread so far, the core philosophy behind feminism, true feminism, fundamentally includes the assumption that equality is something we should strive for, when we should really strive for full orthogonality (effective data blindness to all except directly relevant facts), from which a much more stable equality and justice will arise than would have been induced by the feminist (and other groups, too!) practice of examining the way things currently are in order to figure out what should be fixed.

I, like Guest, refuse to describe myself as a "feminist," for the reason I gave above. I haven't come up with a word to describe myself yet, but I dislike "humanist" just as much as "feminist," because it explicitly stops at humans.

Joined: 01 Oct 2006Posts: 9123Location: The thing in itself that is Will

Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:57 am Post subject:

If you think Dawkins is just about atheism.... you need to get into some biology. It might add to some social constructivism!_________________When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. I just eat them and make a sour face.